Frontex given
until end of March 2014 to comply with the Ombudsman's Recommendations
to change its Management Board Decision putting into effect the
Regulation on public access to EU documents

Eurojust seeks
to avoid any compliance until some undefined point in the future

Europol meets
four Ombudsman Recommendations - but the launch of its public
register of documents "planned for completion by the end
of 2013" is overdue
30.3.14Index | Europol
case | Eurojust
case | Frontex
caseOver the last decade
the powers of the EU's three key Justice and Home Affairs agencies
- Europol (EU law enforcement agency), Eurojust ( EU Judicial
Cooperation Unit) and Frontex (Border Management Agency) - have
steadily increased. Yet they have failed to uphold their legal
obligations to allow the public to request access to documents
produced and held by them. None of the three agencies has fully
met their obligations under Regulation 1049/2001 on public access
to EU documents, limiting scrutiny of their activities and lessening
the possibility of public debate on their work.

On 22 October 2012 Statewatch
submitted three complaints to the European Ombudsman against
Europol, Eurojust and Frontex concerning their policies on access
to documents as laid down in EU Regulation 1049/2001. However,
as the Ombudsman had already launched an own-initiative inquiry
into the three agencies the Statewatch complaints were
closed. By letter on 10 December 2012 the Ombudsman stated that
as Statewatch had agreed that its complaints should be
closed:

"you [Statewatch]
would be informed of the Ombudsman's further steps in his own-initiative
inquiries concerning Europol, Frontex and Eurojust and would
be given the opportunity to submit observations on the replies
received by the Ombudsman."

"Access to
documents is the lifeblood of accountability and democratic standards
so why has it taken nine, seven and ten years respectively for
these Agencies to start coming into line with EU law on public
access to documents?

"Who is responsible
for the failure to ensure compliance with EU law? Is it the European
Commission which, since December 2009, has been charged under
Article 17 of the Lisbon Treaty with ensuring the application
of EU law?"

"It is high-time
that these three agencies were made fully accountable to EU law
and to the public by adopting and fully implementing the right
of access to documents. I look forward to the Ombudsman re-visiting
these complaints."

Overall "state of play" -
EuropolEuropol was set up in 1996 and is now governed
by a Council
Decision passed in 2009. This states that Europol must
"take into account the principles and limits" of Regulation
1049/2001 on public access to documents.

The Statewatch complaint against
Europol raised six issues. The agency has accepted the Ombudsman's
Recommendations to comply with four of them. Its response in
two instances is unclear. However,the"planned
for completion by the end of 2013" for launching its public
register of documents is overdue.

Overall "state
of play" - EurojustEurojust
was set up in 2002 and was obliged to follow the "principles
and limits" of the EU Regulation on public access to EU
documents. The Statewatch complaint against Eurojust set out five
issues where these "principles and limits" have been
breached in Eurojust's 2004 Decision on access to its documents,
which implements the agency's rules based on the EU Regulation.

None of the five issues
raised by Statewatch have been addressed. In three instances,
in response to the Ombudsman's Recommendations, Eurojust seeks
to put off any revision of its Decision on access to its documents
"in the light of the outcome of the re-cast of Regulation
1049/2001" - this in the full knowledge that discussions
between the Council and the European Parliament (EP) have been
in a stalemate for the past four years and that any revision
of 1049/2001 is unlikely until years after the EP elections in
2014. POSTSCRIPT: The Eurojust
Annual Report for 2013
(pdf) makes no reference at all to the Ombudsman inquiry.

"Even now, following
the Ombudsman's report Eurojust seeks to put off rectifying these
three critical changes until some undefined point in the distant
future."

Overall "state
of play" - FrontexThe Ombudsman closed his own-initiative investigation/complaint
against Frontex remarking that he welcomes the fact that Frontex
are revising the Decision of the Management Board, dated 21 September
2006, implementing its policy on public access to its documents
and:

"He reminds Frontex
of the need to implement fully the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001
and in particular that its register should include a list of
sensitive documents. He also requests Frontex to send the revised
Decision by the end of March 2014." [emphasis added]

None of the five issues concerning Frontex originally made by
Statewatch have been addressed - we will only know to
what extent they are met when Frontex responds in March 2014.
POSTSCRIPT: The Frontex
Work Programme for 2014
(pdf) makes no reference whatsoever to revising its Managment
Board Decision on access to documents nor to introducing a public
register of documents.

"Frontex has been
obliged to comply with the EU Regulation on public access to
documents since 2004 under the Regulation that created the agency.
For nine years they have simply ignored this obligation and only
now are they being called to account."

&COPY; Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X.
Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing"
is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage
by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation
holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights
organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with
such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that
licence and to local copyright law.